[MD] Sociability Re-examined

[ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR]

[Craig]
What we would call 'braves' go on what we would call a 'hunt'.  After the hunt each brave usually brings his or her gain back to what we would call the 'chief', who distributes it amongst the entire (what we would call) 'tribe'. If a brave fails to deliver the gain and the chief finds out, there is a conflict between the brave and the chief (and perhaps with the rest of the tribe).  The brave can decide to risk keeping his gain or give it up.   At this point IMHO there is no right or wrong in the matter; it is a matter of biology.  What would need to be different for this to be a third level situation?

[Arlo]
This IS a third level (social) activity. The conflict you are introducing is between satiating the biological drive of hunger (biological level) or fulfilling the semiotically mediated activity relating to the "tribe" (social level).

As Tomasello would argue, socialtity begins historically long before this. By the time you are talking about tribes and rules and agreements and social hierarchy you are awash in social patterns. Sociality begins (both ontologically (for the infant) and phylogenetically (for the species)) at the moment of shared attention; that is at the moment when 'two' (or more) conspecifics recognize the agency and purpose of the 'other' in the immediate moment of experience. From this (biologically-enabled) moment come all the semiotic, mediated, social activities of the (now) social child and the sociality of the species.

So, again, the biological pattern above is 'hunger'. This is in competition with the social patterns of tribal activity.  If the 'brave' keeps the grain (to satiate his hunger) he is acting morally biologically, but (in your example) immorally socially. If he turns the grain over, he is acting morally socially, but (if he receives no sustenance from his labor) immorally biologically.